730
submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

YouTube intensifies fight against ad blockers showing pop-ups, and users are frustrated | Blocking ad-block users::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] zcd@lemmy.ca 209 points 10 months ago
[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 68 points 10 months ago

I agree. YouTube can be very useful, but we really ought to be moving to other platforms at this point. Fuck YouTube.

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

I’ve been using YouTube far more than any of my paid services for years. However I’m ready for a switch. If the YouTubers who I follow switched platforms I’d go with them in a second.

[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

Problem is hosting all the video. You either have one host or many (P2P). Both have issues.

[-] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

And both cost money, neither can exist if everyone circumvents the methods to make money.

[-] Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

YouTube defended their monopoly by running for free. They murdered the growth of legitimate competitions like Vimeo that had healthier business models... Because they didn't try to run for free.

And now that they've saturated the market and killed off all of the serious competition it's time to profit

Well, frankly, go fuck yourself.

So long YouTube, and thanks for all the fish. 🐬

[-] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago

Do you know why there are no good competitors to YouTube? It's fucking expensive.

They have a monopoly but for what? They don't turn a profit. The losses they take on the platform are public knowledge because shockingly, hosting hundreds of TB of data being uploaded per minute isn't cheap.

The only sites that even spit in their general direction is like, Pornhub and oh boy don't try to tell me that 'ad experience' is better Lol. Youtube has shit policies and even worse moderator decisions but it is widely a fucking charity and I think they have some right to turn it into a business instead.

[-] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

That article is outdated. YouTube started to become profitable, but it took more than a decade to get there, so your point still stands.

[-] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

I look forward to the updated source you have on hand. They weren't profitable in 2009, weren't profitable in 2015, and the only things to change since then were Premium subscriptions and more ads. What could they have done to turn a profit?

[-] Slabic@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Typed "was google profitable in 2022". Took about 4 seconds.

https://ippei.com/is-youtube-still-profitable/

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/youtube-statistics/

Edit: as I'm not sure you'll look at the graphs. I want to point out that since 2015 the "what could they have done to turn a profit" question is answered in the graphs

Users increased about 225%

Revenue has increased 700-800%

Its very profitable.

[-] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Revenue

Unfortunately, revenue and profit are not synonyms. Revenue is money made before taxes and expenses. Yes, their revenue has increased because their userbase has increased. Users who are served advertisements. If users block advertisements, revenue decreases* while expenses increase due to more traffic and data storage required, reducing profit. Since YouTube doesn't flop their dick out on the table often, we don't know exact numbers for expenses but in 2015 when they did whip it out, it was at a loss. In your own link, the only methods it cites for Youtube 'profiting' are advertisements and premium. A userbase is only valuable if you can advertise to them, sell their data, or get them to pay a subscription.

  • Revenue technically doesn't "decrease" in this instance but just fails to "increase" because advertisements aren't being served to users that otherwise would receive them.

If enough people block ads, it widens the margin between cost and revenue which can lead to "negative profits" or a loss.

[-] Slabic@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

I'm well aware revenue and profit arent 1:1. You're "source" is a "Google person says they break even" in 2015. I give you graphs showing revenue growing at almost 4x the rate of users since 2015. Are they making 800% more profit, obviously not. But they sure as hell aren't losing money on YouTube anymore.

[-] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My guy.. Userbases increases come with increased traffic and the need for more data storage and bandwidth. We not only don't know what their expenses are but we can't even make a good guess. Your "graphs" show revenue. Stop pointing to them like they matter in any sense. They don't.

800% in REVENUE means nothing if expenses are 805%.

[-] Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

You literally just proved my point.

It wasn't profitable. And it was free. It killed competition by losing money.

And now, by your concession, they are turning it into a business.

That's a fundamental change in the service. Fuck that. Either it was always their intent, in which case they were lying scum the whole time. Or it wasn't their intent and they've just decided spontaneously to prioritize profit, in which case it's greed and betrayal.

Either way, fuck 'em.

[-] RealFknNito@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

.. Yes. The strategy of expanding at a loss in order to recoup it later is a... business strategy. What? It's not even an underhanded one because it carries substantial risk. They ate losses and are now trying to collect on what users like you and I have been enjoying on their dime. Adblockers was to staunch the bleeding and clearly it's not working well enough so they're trying new ways.

You're confusing greed with typical business practices. The grocery store isn't greedy, they're trying to keep the lights on and pay employees. This isn't "Walmart selling items at a loss until local businesses shut down and ramping them back up afterwards" - the data storage needed for this shit is beyond what most companies can do. Amazon with their AWS infrastructure is the only thing that has a shot in hell. The only reason Youtube can do it is by the sheer fact rich ass Google owns them.

Businesses typically collect this thing called money to keep supplying the service you enjoy. Adblockers remove the very essential part of this exchange in which you pay for the thing you're using. You've been stealing groceries and are mad you're now being told to pay for them.

My confusion is profound.

[-] Ronnie@lemmy.ca 22 points 10 months ago

For sure! Which video site are you using instead?

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 66 points 10 months ago
[-] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@lemmy.ml 17 points 10 months ago

there are a few but they're all filled with right wing nutters and i doubt their ability to scale effectively

[-] zik@zorg.social 17 points 10 months ago

Nebula isn't full of right wing nutters as far as I know

[-] hazelnot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 10 months ago

However, I am broke

[-] SineSwiper@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 10 months ago

Nebula is a gated community, and they don't let enough people in. It is far from the definition of "You" Tube.

[-] zik@zorg.social 3 points 10 months ago

On the other hand when you pay for a service you're the customer, not the product. That can be an advantage.

[-] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

i'm not sure nebula can be considered in the same class as youtube though

[-] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

You're right, it's much much higher

[-] HKayn@dormi.zone 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's amusing to see how nobody is able to genuinely answer this question.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago
[-] villainy@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

So... YouTube then

[-] A2PKXG@feddit.de -4 points 10 months ago

The reason while they have all the content, is precisely because they can generate revenue for channels. I much prefer payment through subcription and ad views to annoying in video sponsors and product placements

[-] hightrix@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

But on YouTube you get both. If I could pay and not get in video sponsorship along with no ads, then I might consider it. But I will not pay to be advertised at.

[-] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Sponsorblock is an extention which can help. It doesn't detract from the money the creator makes and you don't see ads for shit you dont want or can't afford. If you don't have premium and block ads though, you're definitely hurting the creator and platform as a whole.

[-] kibiz0r@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Most creators that have in-video sponsors also have Patreons with sponsor-free feeds.

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
730 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

57226 readers
4012 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS